It is important to note that there appears to be a difference in kind between Muslim domestic violence as opposed to the domestic violence familiar to the US outside of Islam.

Specifically: Muslims – males and females both, in at least some cases – seem to accept that using brutal, even fatal, violence, is an acceptable way of disciplining one’s family and keeping order in one’s household.

The only possible solution to that is stigmatizing anyone who holds such views, and stigmatizing anyone who sympathizes with such views. Families, networks, and communities within our nation that support this behavior must be shamed until they realize they have a choice: they can live within our norms, or they can embrace this barbaric practice, but they can’t have it both ways: if they refuse to repudiate the practice of men harming and even murdering wives and daughters, they lose all the social benefits that are normally associated with membership within a community.

We have no problem shaming, stigmatizing, and ostracizing fascists, violent white supremacists and other bigots who advocate for what is unacceptable, so why shouldn’t we demand the same for those who support domestic violence that results in the horrific murders of women and children?

In France, the courts have had to address the question of marriages that are actually or potentially polygamous by the law under which they were contracted and where the parties, or one of them has subsequently settled in France and, perhaps, acquired French nationality. Some of these marriages were governed by Sharia; others by African customary law.

The tendency has been to recognise maintenance and succession rights arising from such marriages. Of course, plural marriage by French citizens or on French soil are void, under the Code Civil.

The question has been ignored by the legislature and the jurists (la doctrine), so, at the moment it is governed by “La jurisprudence” (the practice of the courts)

From what I can tell, the chief fear is that “liberal judges” will start issuing judgments that will somehow lead us to all be judged under Sharia laws. They point to a single case in New Jersey in which a judge made a pretty obvious legal mistake which was easily and swiftly corrected by the appeals court. Out of the hundreds of thousands of decisions issued by our courts every year, the fact that there was only this one decision that they can point to seems to pretty much confirm that Judges are not churning out Sharia judgments. Why liberal American judges would wish to establish Sharia as the law of the land is also never explained.

The other fear is that legislators will start enacting “sharia” provisions into law. We’d have to see quite a huge increase in either Muslim conversions or immigration to make this happen. But even still, these laws if they were ever passed would also have to pass muster under the US Constitution.

Let’s say, for instance, that a state passes a law requiring that those guilty of adultery must be stoned to death, as some claim Sharia requires. We have a federal constitution with the 8th amendment – it doesn’t allow “cruel and unusual punishment,” and it’s also been interpreted to ban capital punishment for crimes that don’t involve homicide. So in that sense, the US Constitution already “bans” this aspect of Sharia.

I have really tried to find a single coherent case in favor of these anti-Sharia laws, or an example of a problem that the anti-Sharia laws would fix. I find many of the sharia-justified practices in Muslim countries to be absolutely abhorrent — but we already have laws to prevent such practices.

The more I read from anti-sharia advocates, the less convincing is their case. The hysteria around this issue is more frightening than any of the scenarios they point to as signs of “creeping sharia” in the United States.

It is extremely unlikely that we will suddenly be overrun by hundreds of millions of Muslims, which are the kinds of numbers that would be necessary to amend our constitution to permit Sharia to govern our country. But if it were the case that say 80% of our population was suddenly Muslim, then they would surely have the authority under Article V of the Constitution to amend it, and no “anti-Sharia” law in Oklahoma would avail us.

The questions asked are also important. If you ask a man whether his wife has abused him, you will, overwhelmingly, be told “No.” If you get down to the nitty-gritty and ask whether she’s punched him, or slapped him, or what have you, you discover that women are as likely to batter their husbands as vice versa.

You make some excellent points, but, as I have said before, the difficulties associated with such laws apply, not only to contracts, but to questions of personal status and succession.

Consider the case of two Algerian citizens, who go through a form of marriage in Algeria and subsequently come to reside, or acquire property, in the United States. Suppose an American court is called on to adjudicate on the validity of that marriage. Hitherto, every court in the civilised world would apply their personal law, the law of Algeria, which happens to be Sharia Law. Is it seriously suggested this question should be decided by the laws of Arizona or Tennessee?

Again, by the law of all nations, succession to movables, wherever situated, is governed by the personal law of the deceased, the law of his or her citizenship or domicile at the time of death. Suppose the deceased is the national of a country, where Sharia is the law of the land and ownss US assets, say a bank account, Treasury bonds and other investments. What law, if not Sharia, is to govern the ranking of creditors or of beneficiaries?

Similar questions can arise around the validity of wills, the age of majority, legitimacy, guardianship, divorce and others too numerous to mention.

Of course, no court is required to enforce foreign laws that conflict with their own concepts of public order, but that should be applied only to particular cases and not to a whole system of jurisprudence.

Sunnishine: It was Goldman who was suggesting this, I was just pointing out the ramifications of his overblown rhetoric. My comment was meant to respond to the article above, which says: Goldman complains about “the problem of Muslim wife-beating. The Quranically legitimated threat of violence in Muslim households, he says, renders any domestic arrangement contracted under Sharia compulsive of necessity—and so morally repugnant.”

My point was that if this is so (which I don’t agree with) then not only are Muslim marriages “morally repugnant” but also legally void. Goldman’s point is surely wrong, that was the point of my post.

“To the extent that local courts may turn a blind eye to Muslim domestic violence on the spurious grounds of cultural relativism, legislatures have an interest in directing that the dilution of individual rights under American law is unacceptable.”

But he offers no evidence that any US court is doing this. Many cultures accept wife abuse, and the courts don’t tolerate it. Then he offers a catch-22 that he knows ahead of time that no Muslim can nakedly accept: He says that he will oppose anti-Sharia laws once a single Muslim leader publicly abjures a passage in the Koran telling men to hit their wives to correct them.

He knows that no one will take him up on his offer because abjuring this passage in the Koran would be apostasy for Muslims, who believe every word in the book comes from the mouth of God.

I don’t believe that “failing to abjure” this passage means that all Muslim men hit their wives — there are all kinds of ways of finessing the meaning of the words, but they can’t come out and say they are wrong. It’d be like a Catholic being required to say that the Eucharist is not the Body of Christ sometimes in order for them to have civil rights. They’re not going to do it.

Look – if a Muslim guy hits his wife, he gets the same treatment in our courts as a Jewish or Christian guy. These anti-Sharia laws don’t make a whit of difference about it, and Goldman knows it.

There is not a single argument in his article that even defends the anti-Sharia laws — he’s just disappointed in Robby George for refusing to help come up with a “better anti-Sharia law” that would be constitutional and would address some un-disclosed problem that our current laws aren’t addressing (which he fails to even articulate or identify).

I really have lost respect for Goldman on this one. I used to think he was a sensible critic, but this article makes me think he’s just a demagogue.

Or to take an example from marriage, a husband and wife upon divorce have a dispute about a delayed dowery term in the marriage contract. Under these new state laws, the court cannot consider the Sharia terms governing this dispute.

In most people’s minds “Sharia” has no meaning other than violent images from abroad. Of course we all oppose such actions. But passing laws to prevent Muslims from going about their daily affairs in accordance with such mundane matters as how to eat, pray, marry, divorce, write a will, conduct business, etc. does nothing to prevent violence either abroad or here. We already have laws against violence, and no Muslims are exempt from them.